Ongoing SCG Chicago Results

[LordHomerCat]

I have to agree with Steve and Becker, there's no good reason to restrict right now.  I mean, the format is as healthy as it has been in quite a while in my eyes.  The supposed "best deck" is definitely beatable and there are tons of new decks emerging as real contenders which just didn't stand a chance in the Gifts era (RG, Goblins, UBg Aggro-Control, Mask-Nought, etc.).  Workshops got a potential boost with the newest set in Thorn, which doubles as an effective soft lock piece for creature-based strategies.  Yes, that's right, Creatures!  In Vintage!  And they aren't crappy bears like Meddling Mage or True Believer.  Honestly, I can't think of a time when Vintage was more justifiably diverse (most of the people not playing Gifts or Pitch Long were making a terrible decision), in that any of a variety of decks is capable of winning.

As was mentioned a little earlier, Gush is a TERRIFIC deck to have as the Deck-to-Beat.  It is very interactive, it kills with creatures, and it is definitely beatable and has to play fair a lot of the time (at least for a while).  Dave, you complain about how dominant it is, but your main results are from a different format (pre-lorwyn, heck, pre-tarmogoyf-adoption).  From this current format, with Thorn and Thoughtseize and Gaddock Teeg (hah) and emerging Tarmogoyfs, Gush put up some very fair numbers in chicago, pretty much just placing the correct proportion of players into the top 8.

A couple months ago, I thought that Scroll deserved to be restricted because there just weren't any decks out there that were actually as good as Gush or at least as good a choice to play.  Now, with a couple months more experience, and some interesting new cards, Gush is no longer the only smart choice for a tournament.  That sounds like the sign of a very healthy metagame: one where there is a deck-to-beat and a huge variety of tier-1 and tier-2 decks with reasonable matchups against Gush and the field and where player skill has a very great effect on who wins (exception: flash). 

If I had a vote, I wouldn't touch a thing, I haven't been this happy with the Vintage metagame in a very long time, and I look forward to playing in this environment for as long as possible.

[feyd]

What I meant in my previous post (being more careful this time)  is that magic is like a game of craps.  You can have a hot run but inevitebly that hot run won't last forever.  Gush is like playing craps, but in this case you may just be  house odds.  My point is that gush looses and will loose.  It may have the best overall odds of ripping fantastic plays but this means very little.  Grim long may have the highest concentration of "bombs" but it may go through 30 cards before it sees a single "bomb".  My arguement is, simply, chaos theory.  I see this game as I see backgammon:  you have to know where to place your pieces but in the end your fate is decided by the role of the dice.  If people have some sore spot because of gush it is undeserved.  Flash decks can instantly win with double (sometimes triple) counter backup all because of the role of the dice.  Complaints about a single card and it's percieved power mean nothing in a format where REB, FOW, and stifle run rampant. 
     Black lotus may be the very best card a combo player might see but in the end they may shuffle, draw seven cards at the beginning of every game and in the end never see the lotus for the rest of their lives.  If possibility became actuallity then Flash would be the best deck ever concieved of; every openingb hand would be instant win combo with coun ter backup/bounce.  IN the end even the fastest possible decks in the format can be defeated by mulligans and simple proactive answers like duress, smother, and disenchant.  Many a player have pulled off a gush/bond combo going down to one life and pass priority only to see fire/ice cast by the defending standstill player, or better yet been at one life and had their game ending tendrils of agony stifled.  With any given deck having strengths and weaknesses, both percieved and actual, any deck in this format can command the helm.  I saw, just recently in fact, a red/green deck take first at a major tournament.  Please don't tell me that his deck was perfect.  He got a hot run and ran with it.  Flash has done the same and so has gush/gat/tendrils/long/slaver/standstill/etc. 
     Magic is unlike religion in one key area:  IN MAGIC WE ROLE DICE!

[heiner]

Actually backgammon isn't decided by luck at all. The very best human backgammon players have absolutely no chance agains the best backgammon computer programms. And with no chance I mean that the computer will almost win 100% of the games. The strategy to win backgammon is to place your stones in a way that every possible dice rol which may occur fits your current board position. This makes a good player totally luck independent.

[feyd]

I used it as an example.  And I meant is when two opponents face off against one another; just like in magic.  Of course a "perfect" computer will win an overwhelming ammount of time but a human opponent is different.  There are computer programs designed to slaughter chess players but you don't see chess clubs springing up around a single computer opponent.  IN a match between humans logic, reasoning, and luck all come into play.  No human is perfect.  Playskill is taken into account in every match of magic; a player never having played vintage before would most likely do horrible playing GAT.
     I don't think you or anyone else that has an understanding of M:TG will argue that the opening dice role diffintely plays an enormous part of every match. 
    On top of this...who hasn't gone into "topdeck mode" ?  Please give me an example because I want to know his secret :>  People who have perfect playskill still succumb to the inherently randomness of playing magic.  Suppose a GAT player desparately needs a berserk to win the game before the next turn or he will loose.  If he draws a cunning wish/berserk he is in good shape.  But what if that card is a land?  Math means very little in magic.  Your library is shuffled time and time again if you are playing any gush variant/long/any vintage deck really.  The best you can do is hope to increase your odds at drawing certain cards.  But in the end there is no gaurantee that that will ever happen. 
    The best players in magic make mistakes, too.  Magic isn't played against a computer; magic is mano-e-mano in vintage.  If you have ever played a game and saw nothing but lands/no lands you know what I mean by chaos.  Things like that are statiscally improbable.  Having no lands after you mulligan three times is also improbable but it still happens.  Mulliganing three-four times might not find you one of the four leylines in your deck and you roll to ichorid/flash. 
    If standstill, RG,stax,SS(w/naught), and a slew of other high tier, low tier and homebrew decks will beat gush well...if that doesn't convince you then nothing will.  Gush decks are just as succeptible to choas as any other deck.  If your deck can put up a fighting chance against anything, including gush, then play it and please dear lord don't focus your anger at being unlucky at gush becuase it will just ruin everyone's fun.
  ROLL THEM DICE!

[Hi-Val]

Whenever the SCG with 7 Gush decks comes up, I remember that big (possibly modo) tournament when eight White Weenie decks T8ed.

They emergency-banned Calciderm in T2 as a result.

[JACO]

4 Gush and 4 scroll showing up over and over in top 8's IN TWO DIFFERENT DECKS over the past 6 months is not the same thing as these other decks that you're trying to pass off as having the same dominance...Maybe I'm just living in crazy-viille, but I find it hard to believe that no one finds it shocking that you have two very different decks built around 4 gush and 4 scroll and they both have had tremendous impact in big events recently.  It's not like it's just GAT or just Empty gush tearing up tourneys... they're taking turns.

First of all, I would argue that the deck examples you are quoting, GAT and EmptyGush, are essentially the same deck. They have the same core cards, slightly different support cards (Quirion Dryads vs. Tinker/DSC/Meloku) and occasional paths to victory (early Dryad vs. early Tinker), but ultimately the same kill card the majority of the time (Yawgmoth's Will). The rest of the deck is almost entirely the same, and the functions are extremely similar, with very similar lines of play. I think GAT pilot Steve Mennendian and EmptyGush pilot Tommy Kolowith would be in agreement.

Your sample size is incredibly small. I don't remember who it was, I think perhaps Marco Marotta from Italy or somebody on the East Coast of the USA, who told me they are looking forward to playing more Vintage "once the nostalgia dies down." I understood immediately, but do you know what they meant by that?

The way people decide on a deck for a Vintage tournament varies for each person. Many people will play something they are familiar with, many people will play something because they read it was good or saw it putting up results recently (GAT for example, where coverage and talk has been widespread, or Control Slaver or Pitch Long in the past), and many people will play something their team is playing or working on developing, and yet others will choose something for fun. Very few actually pick what is actually the best deck for the tournament. Right now, in the time immediately after the unrestriction of Gush, Vintage players want to play with their Gushes, even if it is not the actual best deck for the tournament they are in. Sometimes it might be, but more often than not the most played deck is not the best deck for a tournament. The cause of this is nostalgia. Once the feeling of nostalgia dies down, and people start to play other decks after they either get bored with Gush or figure out other good decks, tournament performance will even.

If that isn't clear evidence of dominating, we could go to the SCG prior to that.  7 out of the top 8 were gush.  Seven.  4 GAT and 3 empty gush, with a gat and empty gush splitting in finals.

It's hard to ignore those numbers.

Actually it's quite easy to ignore those numbers. Your sample size for argument is incredibly small.

Literally EVERYBODY is clamoring for the restriction of Gush and Merchant Scroll.  When will you people open your eyes and see it.  That's reason enough, right Dave?

I never said everyone was clamoring for it.  There are 2 sides to every restriction restriction debate.  Some want a change, others don't.  Regardless of any format, there will always be people who despise any changes at all.  There were plenty of people fine with 4 trinisphere.  That doesn't mean that the format couldn't be obviously healthier.

That's true, but it's also true that perhaps the only constant in Vintage, aside from the presence of power nine, has been the call to restrict.

It's not new.  But its wrong, 99% of the time.

Steve, this, and the supporting argument that follows, is probably your best work I have read at any time regarding restriction, or general restriction policy.

[Polynomial P]

Whenever the SCG with 7 Gush decks comes up, I remember that big (possibly modo) tournament when eight White Weenie decks T8ed.

They emergency-banned Calciderm in T2 as a result.

Or PT: New Orleans where Tinkers dominated?

When does the new B/R announcement come out?

[diopter]

Whenever the SCG with 7 Gush decks comes up, I remember that big (possibly modo) tournament when eight White Weenie decks T8ed.

They emergency-banned Calciderm in T2 as a result.

Or PT: New Orleans where Tinkers dominated?

When does the new B/R announcement come out?

Today.

Thankfully nothing was restricted or banned.

[Vegeta2711]

Or PT: New Orleans where Tinkers dominated?

:lol: Bad example here.

From the 2003 December B/R. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dci/announce/dci20031201a

Extended

Ancient Tomb is banned
Goblin Recruiter is banned
Grim Monolith is banned
Hermit Druid is banned
Oath of Druids is banned
Tinker is banned

They banned those three cards on the back of Tinker dominance at PT:NO, while the other three were merely 'problem cards' from that tournament.

[Polynomial P]

Derf. I didnt realize that Hi-val was being sarcastic. *hangs head in shame*

[Nehptis]

I'm disappointed but not surprised that no B/R changes for Vintage were announced. I would have preferred seeing some action taken against Merchant Scroll.   My reasoning is this, tutors (especially conditional ones like Merchant Scroll, Mystical, Burning Wish, etc.) must be constantly re-evaluated and there power kept in check or the grip on them loosened as often as possible.

Consider the restricted Tutors: Demonic, Vampiric, Enlightened, Mystical, Personal, Entomb, Gifts, Imp Seal, Burning Wish, Demonic Consult, Tinker, Crop Rotation and even Regrowth (did I miss any?).  Most of them deservedly belong on the B/R list for their overwhelming ability to sculpt winning scenarios.  The Gifts decks of old where amazing at the "sculpting" technique, which is one reason its restriction was warranted.

This brings us to the two most likely "Watch List" Tutor candidates, Grim Tutor and Merchant Scroll .  Since Vintage is a format with a vast card pool Tutors like GT that can put any card into hand are immediate B/R list candidates.  The only thing keeping them in check are their prohibitive costs.  For example, Diabolic Tutor is for now seemingly too cost intensive for Vintage.  To that end, without Rituals Grim Tutor is a much weaker Tutor and possibly too mana intensive for Vintage.  But, with Rituals Grim Tutor should be restricted.  The life loss cost is almost irrelevant and the extra B is not enough of a limiting factor.

Where "search for any card" Tutors like DT will always be powerful, more discriminating tutors like Merchant Scroll have power shifts depending on the B/R list and the available card pool.  So, let me repeat what I said above; …"tutors (especially conditional ones like Merchant Scroll, Burning Wish, etc.) must be constantly re-evaluated and there power kept in check or the grip on them loosened."  Today, we are in a game state where the grip needs to be tightened on Scroll.  With Recall, Gush and Flash as available targets, MS needs to be considered for restriction.  If Gush and/or Flash were restricted then perhaps Scroll could live on.  But, I think the best approach is to always hit the Tutors first with a restriction and leave their "targets" alone, for now.

Along the same lines, here's something to think about.  What about Burning Wish?  Can it be said that multiple LEDs and 1 Lotus where the problem?  Meaning without all that free mana is perhaps BW balanced enough to warrant unrestriction?  Or is its target, YWill just too powerful even for a 1R Sorcery Tutor?

[diopter]

tutors (especially conditional ones like Merchant Scroll, Burning Wish, etc.) must be constantly re-evaluated and there power kept in check or the grip on them loosened."  Today, we are in a game state where the grip needs to be tightened on Scroll.

It's been evaluated. The majority of players don't want to restrict it, the DCI doesn't want to restrict it. Let's not beat this dead horse.

[Nehptis]

It's been evaluated. The majority of players don't want to restrict it, the DCI doesn't want to restrict it. Let's not beat this dead horse.

Read my post again.  Constantly re-evaluated means, ALL the TIME.  I am a firm believer of a dynamic B/R list.  Once enough data is available to support a B/R or un-B/R decision, then it should be made.  Too many players see the B/R as a holy list that should be used sparingly.  I say it is a tool that should be used as often as necessary.

BTW, by "the majority of players who don't want to restrict it", I assume you mean the very finite # of players that POST on TMD?  Or will you be sharing the large and encompassing poll that you may have taken with the global Vintage community?

[diopter]

It's been evaluated. The majority of players don't want to restrict it, the DCI doesn't want to restrict it. Let's not beat this dead horse.

Read my post again.  Constantly re-evaluated means, ALL the TIME.  I am a firm believer of a dynamic B/R list.  Once enough data is available to support a B/R or un-B/R decision, then it should be made.  Too many players see the B/R as a holy list that should be used sparingly.  I say it is a tool that should be used as often as necessary.

BTW, by "the majority of players who don't want to restrict it", I assume you mean the very finite # of players that POST on TMD?  Or will you be sharing the large and encompassing poll that you may have taken with the global Vintage community?

Fortunately the DCI does not see it your way - the B/R list is something to be used sparingly because banning and restricting cards is a last resort as an absolute and non-negotiable principle.
Also, the metagame (including cards like Merchant Scroll) has been evaluated recently by the DCI, and by our community in this very thread, quite recently. We've determined it's not a problem.

The players who post on TMD provide a pretty good representation of the majority opinion of the Vintage community.

[Moxlotus]

But, with Rituals Grim Tutor should be restricted.  The life loss cost is almost irrelevant and the extra B is not enough of a limiting factor.

Que?  Storm decks don't even play Grim Tutor right now.

[LotusHead]

Read my post again.  Constantly re-evaluated means, ALL the TIME.  I am a firm believer of a dynamic B/R list. 

I'd prefer a more static/stable B/R list.  I'd prefere only having TRULY broken/busted/unbalancing cards on the B/R list and not chaff like Dream Halls. The DCI is slow to unrestrict anything, and a dynamic re-evaluated all the time (every 3 months) policy would be a terribly idea in my opinion.

[tomjoad]

Read my post again.  Constantly re-evaluated means, ALL the TIME.  I am a firm believer of a dynamic B/R list. 

I'd prefer a more static/stable B/R list.  I'd prefere only having TRULY broken/busted/unbalancing cards on the B/R list and not chaff like Dream Halls. The DCI is slow to unrestrict anything, and a dynamic re-evaluated all the time (every 3 months) policy would be a terribly idea in my opinion.

I absolutely agree with this. Frequent changes to the B&R list, especially moving cards back and forth depending on the metagame situation, would lead to too much uncertainty and the almost constant upheaval would (in all likelihood) be to the detriment of the format.

On the topic, though, of unrestriction, I would like to hear, someday, a clarification of the DCI's policy. I mean, pretty much everybody agrees that cards like Dream Halls and FoF can safely come off. A lot of people have argued for other cards to be removed as well, but there are a few cards that have been debated and, ultimately, it has been concluded that they are safe. Often, these conclusions have been reached by the community at large years ago. Now, I appreciate that the DCI needs to be careful about this sort of thing, but I really wonder exactly what evidence they would require in order to unrestrict cards that may have been dangerous once, but now seem quite tame.

[Nehptis]

Que?  Storm decks don't even play Grim Tutor right now.

I guess you forgot to send Tommy K the memo. http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=23695

I find it interesting that the last few posts concur against a dynamic B/R list and instead prefer as little change as possible.  I suppose I am in a minority thinking that a more frequently changing environment is more exciting.  But, I recognize that not everyone likes constant change.

I agree with this statement below and would also like to see the DCI B/R polices become more transparent.

On the topic, though, of unrestriction, I would like to hear, someday, a clarification of the DCI's policy.

[Moxlotus]

Que?  Storm decks don't even play Grim Tutor right now.

I guess you forgot to send Tommy K the memo. http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=23695

I find it interesting that the last few posts concur against a dynamic B/R list and instead prefer as little change as possible.  I suppose I am in a minority thinking that a more frequently changing environment is more exciting.  But, I recognize that not everyone likes constant change.

I agree with this statement below and would also like to see the DCI B/R polices become more transparent.

On the topic, though, of unrestriction, I would like to hear, someday, a clarification of the DCI's policy.

So Tommy played TWO Grim Tutors at an event.  Clearly Grim Tutor would benefit from being restricted...  Did you notice the other storm decks that didn't run Grim Tutor.

I want the DCI to use the B&R  list as a last possible resort.  To be used only if the metagame cannot adapt to a problem.  Part of playing magic is building a deck for the metagame. 

[LotusHead]

I find it interesting that the last few posts concur against a dynamic B/R list and instead prefer as little change as possible.  I suppose I am in a minority thinking that a more frequently changing environment is more exciting.  But, I recognize that not everyone likes constant change.

The environment changes when new sets come out. Future Sight is a great example.  B/R changes affect the game too, but the environment changes primarily by influxes of playable cards into the cardpool.  This happens (usually) 3 times per year.  That's plenty of change.

[OwenTheEnchanter]

For the record if TK played Grim Tutor that means its worth restricting. Everything he touches turns to gold.